Salary Cap: Marner contract discussion XVIII (continued)

[MyBudJT]

Lol, what? That makes zero sense at all.

By that definition, Kadri was replacement level too.

It makes sense to me.

You have core players that you don't trade and everyone else is replaceable.

Tavares, Matthews, Marner, Rielly are all core players

Johnsson, Kapanen, Dermott are replacement players

 

[ToDavid]

Replacement means easily replacable. I wouldn't have classified Kadri or Gardiner as elite but would not have called them replacement level. You can easily find a Kerfoot anywhere in the league that is available for trade. He isn't free but he isn't rare. You have a harder time for a core piece.

I don't think anyone is disputing that. That doesn't make every other player easily replaceable. Young 40+ point players are not easily replaceable.

 

[The Iceman]

Those are UFA numbers and free market prices, Marner has 4 more years of RFA years ahead first before we starting talking UFA purchasing years by Leafs management in 5 years and beyond.

Leafs are paying UFA prices for RFA years, and that is where the problem is. That is what happened with Matthews and now are facing similar situation with Marner.

Which is exactly the way it should be and exactly the way the league is heading. Unfortunately we did not get in ahead of the curve. I think you are seeing/will be seeing more the non-top FA that are in their upper 20s not getting the same kind of contracts they used to. 2016 UFA deals might have been the last straw.
Okposo 7 years $42 million
Backes 5 years $30 million
Lucic 7 years $42 million
Louis Erickson 6 years $36 million
Andrew Ladd 7 years $38.5 million
Darren Helm 5 years $19.2 million
Boedker 4 years $16 million

All these guys are older players now taking up good salary cap $$$

 

[ToDavid]

It makes sense to me.

You have core players that you don't trade and everyone else is replaceable.

Tavares, Matthews, Marner, Rielly are all core players

Johnsson, Kapanen, Dermott are replacement players

I understand what you're saying but replacement level is a well defined term and that's just not what it means. A replacement level player is the average player who is freely available or at minimal cost (think Agostino, Shore, etc.). The guys you can pick up for a late round pick or in free agency for near league minimum salary.

Those are certainly more replaceable parts of the roster but those aren't replacement level players.

 

[TheBeastCoast]

It makes sense to me.

You have core players that you don't trade and everyone else is replaceable.

Tavares, Matthews, Marner, Rielly are all core players

Johnsson, Kapanen, Dermott are replacement players

Those are not replacement players in any sense of the word or how it is used in basically any sport in the world. When you think replacement level think would we see a drop in performance if said player was replaced with a top ahl player.

 

[inthe6ix]

It makes sense to me.

You have core players that you don't trade and everyone else is replaceable.

Tavares, Matthews, Marner, Rielly are all core players

Johnsson, Kapanen, Dermott are replacement players

IMO freddy in net is a core player too - he must be re-up'd at least short term after 2021

hopeful, but scott and woll may not be ready in time

 

[Marshy]

I understand what you're saying but replacement level is a well defined term and that's just not what it means. A replacement level player is the average player who is freely available or at minimal cost (think Agostino, Shore, etc.). The guys you can pick up for a late round pick or in free agency for near league minimum salary.

Those are certainly more replaceable parts of the roster but those aren't replacement level players.

I know there are some WAR stats in hockey that are trying to define replacement level. Not sure how mature these stats are yet. @zeke

 

[zeke]

"Replacement player" is a completely different thing than "replaceable player".

 

[ToDavid]

I know there are some WAR stats in hockey that are trying to define replacement level. Not sure how mature these stats are yet. @zeke

I meant more along the lines of the qualitative definition of what a replacement level player is. Objectively determining who exactly falls into that definition via stats is a whole other thing.

But in general, if a forward is putting up 40+ points in this league they're very likely not a replacement level player. For context, on average there were only about 5 players per team at 0.39p/gp or better over at least 60 games last season (40p/82gp).

 

[Dekes For Days]

It makes sense to me.

You have core players that you don't trade and everyone else is replaceable.

Tavares, Matthews, Marner, Rielly are all core players

Johnsson, Kapanen, Dermott are replacement players

Except that's not what replacement level means at all.

And in the context it was used, I don't see how that's how he meant it, because there'd be no reason to complain about getting a player in that 2nd group (and a top pairing D at an amazing price) for a player in that 2nd group.

 

[zeke]

Replacement means easily replacable. I wouldn't have classified Kadri or Gardiner as elite but would not have called them replacement level. You can easily find a Kerfoot anywhere in the league that is available for trade. He isn't free but he isn't rare. You have a harder time for a core piece.

I'm not sure being a ~45ish point player in strict 3rd line ice time and 2nd unit PP time, with excellent impact numbers on top, in your first two years in the league, is as easily replaceable as you think.

That is quality 2nd line stuff on most teams in the league.

 

[Marshy]

I'm not sure being a ~45ish point player in strict 3rd line ice time and 2nd unit PP time, with excellent impact numbers on top, in your first two years in the league, is as easily replaceable as you think.

That is quality 2nd line stuff on most teams in the league.

Most teams don't have a Matthews/Tavares 1-2 punch either.

Calling the the 3 players who will make up the 3rd line on the Leafs this year "third liners" is a little misleading.

 

[Randy Randerson]

Replacement means easily replacable. I wouldn't have classified Kadri or Gardiner as elite but would not have called them replacement level. You can easily find a Kerfoot anywhere in the league that is available for trade. He isn't free but he isn't rare. You have a harder time for a core piece.

You're going to get in a lot of pointless arguments using "replacement" to mean this. The common usage means "interchangeable with pieces that you have off of the NHL roster at no noticeable detriment to to team performance".

Using it this way is the same as using "Generational" to mean "one of the best 20 players of his generation" - if the term didn't have a universal definition already that would be fine, but trying to re-define it as something other than that universal definition is going to lead to nothing but misunderstandings

Patrick Kane was signed for 15.22% of the cap or 12.4MM in todays dollars.

Not as a comparison to this contract. That was Kane's 3rd contract, which was all UFA years. His 2nd contract was 10.6% of first year cap for 5 years ($6.3M x 5years), so the equivalent of a little under $8.7Mx5 years

 

[SeaOfBlue]

It makes sense to me.

You have core players that you don't trade and everyone else is replaceable.

Tavares, Matthews, Marner, Rielly are all core players

Johnsson, Kapanen, Dermott are replacement players

Cores still change though, especially if one of them is not willing to fit into it like Marner is right now. I like our chances at being able to replace a core winger than a core center or core defender too... Especially when you have Nylander on this team.

 

[Confucius]

this may not be a popular opinion here, but at some point management has to set some precedence and draw the line in the sand.

personally, I would say:

"look, the deadline is 3 days before training camp. if you want to play for the Leafs this season (or ever again), here are your options:

1 - $X AAV for Y years
2 - $A AAV for B Years
3 - $C AAV for D Years

pick which of the three options you prefer, but if we go past the deadline, we're pulling the offer and you will either sit for the year or be traded. Feel free to explore offer sheets but make SURE it's a stadium that you'd actually want to play 41 games in."

If Dubas set this as an ultimatum, I'd give him mad respect and would not feel the least bit slighted if Marner & Co. chose to leave his teammates and team for pastures elsewhere. You can leverage and negotiate all you want, but when push comes to shove, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you have too much personal pride and desire to max your contractual returns, it's your prerogative - just don't be too surprised or upset if you end up in Carolina, Arizona, or on the outside of the NHL and looking in in 2019-2020.

I gree with most of the above, except the traded option, I would tell Mitch the only way that happens is if we get an overpayment, so dont count on that trade option.

 

[Notsince67]

I'm not sure being a ~45ish point player in strict 3rd line ice time and 2nd unit PP time, with excellent impact numbers on top, in your first two years in the league, is as easily replaceable as you think.

That is quality 2nd line stuff on most teams in the league.

The point is we traded a controlled 2 line center (on most teams) for a Dman for 1 Year and.... ok a mid level player. If Barrie decides he would rather go to another team after this year, this trade looks really bad. If he looks better than expected and can command more money than the leafs can pay, this trade looks really bad.
Perhaps it was a necessity to make us competitive next year but even that flushes down the toilet without Marner signing.

 

[zeke]

True but I don't believe for a second that they traded Kadri because of performance. Something had to break to shore up the defense and he was deemed the best piece to go.
It is a shame because I would have never thought that Bozak+Brown+ Leivo+marleau+Zaitsev+Gardiner+Hainsey+Kadri+ Martin+D Moore wouldn't leave us with enough to sign all the young guys plus upgrade the defense.

But it did leave us with enough to sign all the young guys and upgrade the defense.

 

[Marshy]

But it did leave us with enough to sign all the young guys and upgrade the defense.

Well, unless anyone got REALLY greedy.

 

[Bigmarycombo]

A 5 year deal does not take Matthews straight to free agency. Matthews had 4 RFA years left, just like Marner.

Not hard to figure out

I’ll say it slow so you can understand

We signed Matthews to a five year deal. When it is done he is a UFA. Can sign with any team he wants. His choice!

We gave him a no movement clause in his 5 th year which means we cant trade him and if he elects to go to free agency we can do nothing but watch him sign with another team.

So basically by the fourth year if we can not resign him we have to make a decision whether we keep him and lose him for nothing or trade him and try to get back some assets.

Essentially we gave him a four year guaranteed contract with us.
The fifth year can go either way. If we can extend him great or do we trade him to recoup some of his loss.

 

[Notsince67]

But it did leave us with enough to sign all the young guys and upgrade the defense.

It is yet to be seen what it leaves us with. So far I expected a bit more than a 1 year rental Defensive core and 1 major player unsigned.
BTW...I forgot Lupil LTIR and Plecanec. That's another 11.25MM

 

[Bigmarycombo]

True but I don't believe for a second that they traded Kadri because of performance. Something had to break to shore up the defense and he was deemed the best piece to go.
It is a shame because I would have never thought that Bozak+Brown+ Leivo+marleau+Zaitsev+Gardiner+Hainsey+Kadri+ Martin+D Moore wouldn't leave us with enough to sign all the young guys plus upgrade the defense.

You forgot jvr

 

[Dekes For Days]

The point is we traded a controlled 2 line center (on most teams)

Except he wasn't that for us, and he was never going to be again, which would have just resulted in him losing trade value the longer we kept him.

for a Dman for 1 Year

For a top-pairing defenseman at 50% retained for one year, and the potential for a lot more years.

and.... ok a mid level player.

Who paced 2 less goals and 5 less points than Kadri, while in his 2nd season in the NHL, with less ES and PP minutes, who is signed for 1 million less for a year longer.

If Barrie decides he would rather go to another team after this year, this trade looks really bad. If he looks better than expected and can command more money than the leafs can pay, this trade looks really bad.

No it doesn't.

Perhaps it was a necessity to make us competitive next year but even that flushes down the toilet without Marner signing.

No it doesn't. This team is a contender regardless.

 

[4thline]

The point is we traded a controlled 2 line center (on most teams) for a Dman for 1 Year and.... ok a mid level player. If Barrie decides he would rather go to another team after this year, this trade looks really bad. If he looks better than expected and can command more money than the leafs can pay, this trade looks really bad.
Perhaps it was a necessity to make us competitive next year but even that flushes down the toilet without Marner signing.

Re-signing Barrie is immaterial to the trade, if we get it done it's a bonus


A year of Barrie is worth more than a year of Kadri, and that's before factoring in the 1.75 million cap savings.
A year of Kadri is better than a year of Kerfoot, but with Kerfoot we save a million dollars and gain an extra year at 3C.

It's a fine hockey trade.

Especially if you look at opportunity cost. Barrie at 2.75 was a hugely valuable acquisition. In terms of futures it would easily be in the Muzzin range.

 

[justafan22]

Re-signing Barrie is immaterial to the trade, if we get it done it's a bonus


A year of Barrie is worth more than a year of Kadri, and that's before factoring in the 1.75 million cap savings.
A year of Kadri is better than a year of Kerfoot, but with Kerfoot we save a million dollars and gain an extra year at 3C.

It's a fine hockey trade.

Especially if you look at opportunity cost. Barrie at 2.75 was a hugely valuable acquisition. In terms of futures it would easily be in the Muzzin range.

Kadri while great on his contract wasn't the boon with Tavares/Matthews that he thought to be. His role suffered and they got a massive upgrade at a position of need. The trade they did was one of the few Kadri deals where the leafs get value back.

 

[Dekes For Days]

We signed Matthews to a five year deal. When it is done he is a UFA.

Yes, but this is not "straight to UFA". By your logic, anything but a bridge deal is "straight to UFA".

We gave him a no movement clause in his 5 th year which means we cant trade him and if he elects to go to free agency we can do nothing but watch him sign with another team.

It means we can't trade him in the 5th year without his permission.

That is not the same thing. If there are indications that he won't sign here, we could trade him before that July 1st, though the chance that we would ever trade Matthews away is astronomically low anyway.

Essentially we gave him a four year guaranteed contract with us.

No, we gave him a 5 year guaranteed contract. He is signed for 5 years.

The fifth year can go either way. If we can extend him great or do we trade him to recoup some of his loss.

There are possibilities of what could happen in the 5th year, but there are only possibilities because, again, he is signed for 5 years. He either plays with us in year 5, or is traded for assets before year 5. If he was signed for 4, after 4 years there would be no assets and he would be a UFA.